Lombardi And Drew Doughty’s Agent Set The Parameters On His Deal Two Weeks Ago? That Sounds Familiar, Doesn’t It?

Just heard from our source minutes ago. Are you excited? I am excited. The L.A. Kings and Drew Doughty may have an agreement in principle on a long-term deal that may no longer have a NMC provision as a stumbling block. I am told there is also a “back up” 5 year deal in place. Everyone chatted via conference call and it ended well with a happy Drew.

The devil is always in the details so this is not done and I expect both sides will continue to feed the media the work in progress lines, as quite bluntly they should, until the contract is signed. It could take a while still to finish it. Let’s hope that’s only days (and not weeks) away.

There have been no new discussions in the past two weeks. The Kings have a long-term offer on the table, but it wouldn’t be a surprise to see the issue extend into late August, or perhaps even into September. It’s worth noting that Doughty’s agent, Don Meehan, also represented Evgeni Nabokov(notes) when, in 2002, Nabokov held out before signing a contract with the San Jose Sharks (and then-GM Lombardi) in late October.

As for the current Doughty negotiations, Lombardi said today, “I think it’s fair to say that in the last conversation, we set the parameters, as to where we feel his contract should be. We talked about a number of scenarios, and I guess now it’s their move. They never really responded.”

So, their last discussion was 2 weeks ago…check.

It was about a long-term deal…another check.

According to Lombardi, “we” (referring to Dean Lombardi and Doughty’s agents) set the “parameters” 2 weeks ago as to where both sides feel his contract should be and they talked about a number of scenarios (all within said parameters no doubt) in this phone conference…parameters…in other words, there was an agreement in principle as to where the contract numbers should fall, typically a range or low to high if you will. That sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it? Where have we heard that before? Nah, we are just real good guessers. Well, one person thinks so.

If it requires getting religious to get this Drew Doughty contract done, I say we all do it. I am not above praying. I want this behind us so we can wear our smiles the rest of the summer with confidence. Pray with me. Surly, you too. Our Father, who art in heaven…

5 replies

Like to hear that word “parameters”, as it almost certainly means what you believe that it does.
In this case, a little elbowing, a little negotiation, a duck and feint or two and there should be a deal. There is no “correct” answer where it comes to value – only more or less reasonable and supportable arguments. Arguments with evidence, but never quite “proof.” So, both sides make a call and, at some point have to say: “I can live with this” and take pen to paper and then say, to themselves: “hope this works out” and then breathe out and smile and get to work. The remaining risk is the cost of doing business. Which is why, if DL acts reasonably, I will never criticise him later if DD goes “bust” for any reason. We’re betting a lot on another man’s motivation and character – it’s no small thing.

Perhaps the most relevent portion of the prayer at this point in the negotiation must be: “…lead us not into temptation,…”

I am above praying, so I will leave that to you ;) This will conclude sooner or later but before season start so I am O.K. with it. I hope Dean fights, but I have a feeling it will be on Meehan’s terms. Dean has already tangoed with him before over this exact same issue and last time it cost him his job. Meehan knows the cards on the table and he is playing his superior hand. Either way, Drew will sign with the Kings prior to the start of the season so there is no real concern.

There is no agreement in principle. If there were, the contract would have been signed by now. An agreement in princple would indicate that both parties agree on the major terms of the contract. Setting parameters (and I don’t asume it was Doughty’s camp he was referring to) is likewise not indicative of an agreement in principle.